China: The Unsatisfied Power

[Edison Chen]

Care to explain in detail how the chinese people choose their leaders every 10 years?

Deng Xiaoping abolished lifetime leadership in 1990s, after that, we modified the constitution that each government will have two terms to hold the power, that is 10 years.

1982, not 1990s

 

[Carlosa]

Deng Xiaoping abolished lifetime leadership in 1990s, after that, we modified the constitution that each government will have two terms to hold the power, that is 10 years.

That is fine, but the point here is whether the chinese system of government is a dictatorship or not, so the question is how the chinese people directly choose their government and how the will of the people can bring the government down if the majority of the people does not approve of it?

Is it the will of the people that elects the leaders or is it the Politburo, which are people that have not being elected?

 

[Edison Chen]

That is fine, but the point here is whether the chinese system of government is a dictatorship or not, so the question is how the chinese people directly choose their government and how the will of the people can bring the government down if the majority of the people does not approve of it?

Is it the will of the people that elects the leaders or is it the Politburo, which are people that have not being elected?

First we need to define what is a dictatorship. Dictatorship is not all about vote. Comparing to the West democracy societies, maybe China is, but comparing to North Korea, China is not. In general opinion, we can say dictatorship operates without restrictions, doesn't allow different opinions, law is just a decoration, right? China is clearly not doing this.

We can't direct decide who will be the leaders although we can vote. Before the due of term of government, the CPC made decisions who will enter the cabinet for the next term, then the congress followed the step, which is meaningless. So the CPC decides everything. There is an CPC organization called the Political Bureau of the Central Committee, consisting of 25 members, 7 of them are members of Politburo Standing Committee, the real top leaders of China. The other 18 members are top leaders of each province(it depends). This organization make decisions. China leadership is a collective system, each member could represent different interests. There is no such thing that people bring the government down, they just be there for 10 years, after that, all the current leaders must resign the administrative authority to their successors, no exception.

I also want to say that China has hidden conflicts of political groups. In the West, they are all public, in China it's hidden, which doesn't mean that China is that system one person's opinion is everything. For example, President Xi and Ex-President Jiang belong to different groups, Jiang represents the interest of "Shanghai group", a group of politicians from South China, President Xi represents "China Prince Party", their fathers or grandfathers are top learders since the creation of PRC. The collapse of Zhou Yongkang is the result of conflicts between two groups after Xi hold power, because Zhou Yongkang belongs to Shanghai Group.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

I also want to say that China has hidden conflicts of political groups. In the West, they are all public, in China it's hidden, which doesn't mean that China is that system one person's opinion is everything. For example, President Xi and Ex-President Jiang belong to different groups, Jiang represents the interest of "Shanghai group", a group of politicians from South China, President Xi represents "China Prince Party", their fathers or grandfathers are top learders since the creation of PRC. The collapse of Zhou Yongkang is the result of conflicts between two groups after Xi hold power, because Zhou Yongkang belongs to Shanghai Group.

I think we've discussed this before, but I continue to be amazed at the parallels between the CCP and Japan's LDP, with its factional infighting. Do you see these factions within the CCP causing a rift and leading to a political system that encompasses a "loyal opposition," or do you think that on the contrary, the existence of the factions makes the CCP more robust and able to adapt over time? What prevents a future CCP leadership from trying to get "revenge" on the previous ruling faction?

By the way, are there any other known groups inside the CCP besides the Shanghai Group and the China Prince Party (great name)?

 

[Carlosa]

First we need to define what is a dictatorship. Dictatorship is not all about vote. Comparing to the West democracy societies, maybe China is, but comparing to North Korea, China is not. In general opinion, we can say dictatorship operates without restrictions, doesn't allow different opinions, law is just a decoration, right? China is clearly not doing this.

We can't direct decide who will be the leaders although we can vote. Before the due of term of government, the CPC made decisions who will enter the cabinet for the next term, then the congress followed the step, which is meaningless. So the CPC decides everything. There is an CPC organization called the Political Bureau of the Central Committee, consisting of 25 members, 7 of them are members of Politburo Standing Committee, the real top leaders of China. The other 18 members are top leaders of each province(it depends). This organization make decisions. China leadership is a collective system, each member could represent different interests. There is no such thing that people bring the government down, they just be there for 10 years, after that, all the current leaders must resign the administrative authority to their successors, no exception.

I also want to say that China has hidden conflicts of political groups. In the West, they are all public, in China it's hidden, which doesn't mean that China is that system one person's opinion is everything. For example, President Xi and Ex-President Jiang belong to different groups, Jiang represents the interest of "Shanghai group", a group of politicians from South China, President Xi represents "China Prince Party", their fathers or grandfathers are top learders since the creation of PRC. The collapse of Zhou Yongkang is the result of conflicts between two groups after Xi hold power, because Zhou Yongkang belongs to Shanghai Group.

Yes, but just because there are institutions and a "system", that does not mean that those in government respond to the will of the people or that people are free to express their opinion about the government. Those provincial leaders and local leaders are the same ones that often face riots when they legally steal land from the people right? That means that people are not actually represented in government and their interest is taken into account by the government since as it is well know, the system is corrupted to the core and responds mainly to money and power.

President Xi has been engaging in an anti corruption drive where he clearly shown that high leaders consolidated power by giving positions and rewards (bribes) to those on their side or to get others on their side, so thereby exposing the mechanism of power in China as it is very clear to anybody without bias, those politicians stay in power and place others in power by instruments of corruption and there is nothing that the chinese people can do about that. If you complain against those in government, then you become a desident and you go to jail.

Its clear that the system does not follow the will of the people and that there is no system of checks and balances in order for people to control the government. If people have no legal way to make any effect on government (other than riots), then clearly this is not a representative system of government and that its called a dictatorship. It stays in power by the use of the organs of security of the state (police, army, censorship, etc, etc). Again, that is a dictatorship. Just because other dictatorships are worse, does not make the chinese system any less of a dictatorship.

Taiwan on the other hand, just 3 days ago, the people showed their displeasure with government and threw out those that they felt didn't represent the interests of the people at the local level and it will exercise that right again in1.5 years with respect to the central government. Its clear that Taiwan's people are in control of their government, that's why that system is called a democracy. The difference between the 2 systems is very clear.

 

[Edison Chen]

I think we've discussed this before, but I continue to be amazed at the parallels between the CCP and Japan's LDP, with its factional infighting. Do you see these factions within the CCP causing a rift and leading to a political system that encompasses a "loyal opposition," or do you think that on the contrary, the existence of the factions makes the CCP more robust and able to adapt over time? What prevents a future CCP leadership from trying to get "revenge" on the previous ruling faction?

By the way, are there any other known groups inside the CCP besides the Shanghai Group and the China Prince Party (great name)?

It seems there is no such rift or loyal opposition so far, its just inside the CPC. The faction is an objective existence, as China has vast land, so there are many problems too. The regional gap, the income gap in China is huge comparing to the US. Each region has its own and unique situation, some provinces are well developed while some others are still backward, so it requires a general consensus, making policies that consider everyone's problem. As the industrialization of China goes on, such gap will be more obvious, the conflicts will be more fierce. I can't say it's good for CPC or not, because it's an objectivity thing. Even there is no CPC, the other parties will also adapt the same system, because this is the rule of China.

There is other parties too...like “Youth League”, ex-President Hu belongs to this group. The members generally have a higher education degree while no deep background like China Prince Party. People say their political view is similar to Democratic Party of US or Labour Party of UK.......They are all unofficial name.

Yes, but just because there are institutions and a "system", that does not mean that those in government respond to the will of the people or that people are free to express their opinion about the government. Those provincial leaders and local leaders are the same ones that often face riots when they legally steal land from the people right? That means that people are not actually represented in government and their interest is taken into account by the government since as it is well know, the system is corrupted to the core and responds mainly to money and power.

President Xi has been engaging in an anti corruption drive where he clearly shown that high leaders consolidated power by giving positions and rewards (bribes) to those on their side or to get others on their side, so thereby exposing the mechanism of power in China as it is very clear to anybody without bias, those politicians stay in power and place others in power by instruments of corruption and there is nothing that the chinese people can do about that. If you complain against those in government, then you become a desident and you go to jail.

Its clear that the system does not follow the will of the people and that there is no system of checks and balances in order for people to control the government. If people have no legal way to make any effect on government (other than riots), then clearly this is not a representative system of government and that its called a dictatorship. It stays in power by the use of the organs of security of the state (police, army, censorship, etc, etc). Again, that is a dictatorship. Just because other dictatorships are worse, does not make the chinese system any less of a dictatorship.

Taiwan on the other hand, just 3 days ago, the people showed their displeasure with government and threw out those that they felt din't represent the interests of the people at the local level and it will exercise that right again in1.5 years with respect to the central government. Its clear that Taiwan's people are in control of their government, that's why that system is called a democracy. The difference between the 2 systems is very clear.

@Carlosa and @LeveragedBuyout Thanks for your contribution, I will reply later, got some interviews to prepare today....see you later.

 

[Audio]

I like how y'all ripped Genesis' theory apart.

I'm surprised noone noticed how he speaks of give and take, peaceful rise and fruits for all and how there is no guarantee that China will continue with it's belligerency, but then in one of his follwong posts, boasts how they pushed the Phillipines.

He speaks of altering perceptions, which is exactly what he is doing by raping Bismarck history.

Interested reader should note this are instructions trickled from the top, Xi Jinping was very recently speaking about spreading the Chinese narrative and this is it. In my humble opinion.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Care to explain in detail how the chinese people choose their leaders every 10 years?

lol, China's political model is perfectly balanced, even your beloved Vietcong is trying hard to copy our political model.

However, Vietnam is not as successful as China because the Vietcong is not as competent as the CPC.

 

[Zsari]

These are very good points, and I admit to not having considered them (and in the case of the Philippines' and Vietnam's actions in the SCS decades ago, I was totally unaware). As I have wondered before, why isn't China's public information effort more coordinated in the West? Even though I don't read it, op-eds in the New York Times would go a long way towards explaining this kind of reasoning to the American elite, which in turn, would eventually trickle down to the general population. Instead, we usually have a China acts -> US reacts -> China demands "understanding" for its position. What would be more effective is China acts -> China explains -> US reacts, or better yet, China explains -> China acts.

Even Korea [annoyingly] bombards the US newspapers (and magazines, and billboards...) with explanations of its claims to Dokdo Island. Shouldn't China be making a similar effort?

The Chinese government failed to even explain clearly to its people of many things let along the US public. So yes, Chinese media has not had much success thus far in getting its narratives out. This is also compacted by the difficulty in reaching the US audience, that anything coming out of China would be dismissed as propaganda. Another thing is that the action taken by Vietnam or Philippine would not bring much if any international media attention, but anything China does would immediately be scrutinized, that's the price to pay for being a major power just like the US.

That is fine, but the point here is whether the chinese system of government is a dictatorship or not, so the question is how the chinese people directly choose their government and how the will of the people can bring the government down if the majority of the people does not approve of it?

Is it the will of the people that elects the leaders or is it the Politburo, which are people that have not being elected?

Here is an explanation on the Chinese NPC, which elects the Politburo.

The NPC consists of about 3,000 delegates. Delegates to the National People's Congress are elected for five-year terms via a multi-tiered representative electoral system. Delegates are elected by the provincial people's assemblies, who in turn are elected by lower level assemblies, and so on through a series of tiers to the local people's assemblies which are directly elected by the electorate.

 

[gambit]

First we need to define what is a dictatorship. Dictatorship is not all about vote.

Of course it is about the vote, or more precisely, the qualification of an individual to have his/her say into his/her government. The broader the voting base and the more in-depth the vote into government, the more democratic the country is perceived. For the West, the voting base is broad and the vote's penetration into government is more than what the average Chinese citizen is allowed. For the US, we have the popular vote for the Presidency. For some European parliamentary system, some PMs are voted by their party members, some are popularly elected. But overall, everyone will judge and be judged based upon inured experience. China is no exception.

Comparing to the West democracy societies, maybe China is, but comparing to North Korea, China is not. In general opinion, we can say dictatorship operates without restrictions, doesn't allow different opinions, law is just a decoration, right? China is clearly not doing this.

Look at the relationship between a government and the citizenry as analogous to that of husband and wife. In any multi-party relationship, and a traditional man-woman marriage does qualify as multi-party because there are two persons involved, there must be a final authority figure, so let us stick with the tradition of that figure being the man (husband) for now. Incidentally, I had a non-American idiot who insists that two does not equal to multi. Freaking moron he was.

Anyway...There is a great difference between contestant policies and contestant ideologies.

To use the marriage analogy, contestant policies is when the husband want steak for every dinner but the wife want chicken and fish for financial and health reasons. Contestant ideologies is when the husband want an 'open marriage' but the wife want absolute fidelity. The latter strikes at the foundation of the relationship.

For the US, contestant ideologies would be democratic vs Marxism. Contestant politics would be Democrat vs Republican. Or in the case of this guy...

Rent Is Too Damn High Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As its name implies, the central tenet of the Rent Is Too Damn High Party is that rents in the city of New York are too damn high.

Nobody at the national level took Jimmy McMillan seriously. But the bottom line is that in the interests of preserving US multi-party politics, he must be allowed to present himself.

The US does not have contestant ideologies, not because we legally banned any ideology, take note that the Communist Party of the USA is free to conduct its businesses openly, but because we expect any ideology that want to challenge the norm to make its case directly to the people because we believe the people should be the source of our government. So if the CPUSA or The Rent Is Too Damn High Party managed to convince enough voters to send a few to either houses of the Congress, we will see a new arena of contestant politics and may be a change in ideology. But before all of this -- the people must be convinced.

Your China does not even allow contestant politics from the people and whatever contestant policies there are inside the Chinese Communist Party, they are debated behind closed doors among the select few. That is like the husband debating the issues with the voices in his own head and declaring his decision -- dry aged prime rib steak every night -- to be 'democratic'.

So yes, your China IS a dictatorship.

 

[Keel]

Of course it is about the vote, or more precisely, the qualification of an individual to have his/her say into his/her government. The broader the voting base and the more in-depth the vote into government, the more democratic the country is perceived. For the West, the voting base is broad and the vote's penetration into government is more than what the average Chinese citizen is allowed. For the US, we have the popular vote for the Presidency. For some European parliamentary system, some PMs are voted by their party members, some are popularly elected. But overall, everyone will judge and be judged based upon inured experience. China is no exception.


Look at the relationship between a government and the citizenry as analogous to that of husband and wife. In any multi-party relationship, and a traditional man-woman marriage does qualify as multi-party because there are two persons involved, there must be a final authority figure, so let us stick with the tradition of that figure being the man (husband) for now. Incidentally, I had a non-American idiot who insists that two does not equal to multi. Freaking moron he was.

Anyway...There is a great difference between contestant policies and contestant ideologies.

To use the marriage analogy, contestant policies is when the husband want steak for every dinner but the wife want chicken and fish for financial and health reasons. Contestant ideologies is when the husband want an 'open marriage' but the wife want absolute fidelity. The latter strikes at the foundation of the relationship.

For the US, contestant ideologies would be democratic vs Marxism. Contestant politics would be Democrat vs Republican. Or in the case of this guy...

Rent Is Too Damn High Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nobody at the national level took Jimmy McMillan seriously. But the bottom line is that in the interests of preserving US multi-party politics, he must be allowed to present himself.

The US does not have contestant ideologies, not because we legally banned any ideology, take note that the Communist Party of the USA is free to conduct its businesses openly, but because we expect any ideology that want to challenge the norm to make its case directly to the people because we believe the people should be the source of our government. So if the CPUSA or The Rent Is Too Damn High Party managed to convince enough voters to send a few to either houses of the Congress, we will see a new arena of contestant politics and may be a change in ideology. But before all of this -- the people must be convinced.

Your China does not even allow contestant politics from the people and whatever contestant policies there are inside the Chinese Communist Party, they are debated behind closed doors among the select few. That is like the husband debating the issues with the voices in his own head and declaring his decision -- dry aged prime rib steak every night -- to be 'democratic'.

So yes, your China IS a dictatorship.

China is a consultative and collective leadership-party government

USA is THE DICTATOR STATE to the whole world in its guise of having a "democratic" system to its people!

 

[TaiShang]

The Chinese government failed to even explain clearly to its people of many things let along the US public. So yes, Chinese media has not had much success thus far in getting its narratives out. This is also compacted by the difficulty in reaching the US audience, that anything coming out of China would be dismissed as propaganda. Another thing is that the action taken by Vietnam or Philippine would not bring much if any international media attention, but anything China does would immediately be scrutinized, that's the price to pay for being a major power just like the US.

Indeed.

Western media outlets slander opponents rather than reporting truth
By Farooq Yousaf Source:Global Times Published: 2014-12-3

Illustration: Liu Rui/GT

"We are in an information war, and we are losing that war. I'll be very blunt in my assessment," said former US secretary of state Hillary Clinton, once commenting on the new wave of information and media warfare.

Her indication was clearly toward the rise of state-funded news channels such as CCTV, Press TV and Russia Today.

What makes it more interesting is that the aforementioned networks are based in the Global East, and they come under heavy criticism for being propaganda networks due to the West's disagreements with Iran, China and Russia.

So much so that if you, as a journalist, have worked for RT and Press TV in particular, you carry a black spot on your CV. Such has been the influence of Western media over the common news consumers and job market in creating a negative image of non-Western-owned news networks.

Above all, should we expect a completely objective media outlet in this modern age?

Mediastan, a documentary produced by Wikileaks and its founder Julian Assange in 2013, beautifully sums up how modern media works with a particular bias and agenda, irrespective of its origin and ownership.

Although without flare or production intricacies, this documentary, made with a hand-held camera and trailing the journey of young journalists in Central Asia, explains how even small states in the region are bound by limitations when it comes to publishing sensitive cables.

One of the high points of Mediastan was the exposé of The New York Times and The Guardian, generally perceived as among the most objective papers, on how they manipulated Wikileaks cables to present the story with a certain agenda.

The term revolution has become so common that Western media was reporting every event in the Middle East, big or small, involving violent protests against the state as revolutions.

The Free Syrian Army, which allied with terrorist outfits such as the Islamic State, was also initially regarded as a revolutionary outfit, and thus it was deemed necessary to support it.

The term invasion in recent times became synonymous with the Russian moves in Ukraine.

Invasion literally means an aggressive entry of troops of one country in another for the purpose to liberate, establish control or conquer. But in the case of Ukraine, it is hard to give an objective opinion on Russia's military presence. The common media discourse, especially in the EU and the US, conveniently uses the term invasion to explain Russian actions.

With this loss and plurality of media voices and along with rise of alternative media, the two Western news networks are trying their best to focus on content used for maligning their adversaries, rather than reporting what needs to be reported.

A common saying goes that propaganda is only countered with propaganda. So if a country faces a constant propaganda bombardment, what options does it have? Obviously creating its own means of countering that propaganda.

 

[BoQ77]

Yeah, base on your definition @Genesis :
Patient means China feel that they are still not so strong to invade the world by the way German did. And they must wait for right time to do that.

It's dangerous trend, same to 1923 to Germany.
It's coincidence that Hitler lead National Socialist German Workers' Party in Germany

 

[TaiShang]

Yeah, base on your definition @Genesis :
Patient means China feel that they are still not so strong to invade the world by the way German did. And they must wait for right time to do that.

That's very serious, is it not? China also plans to ally with the aliens to colonize Mars. But "they must wait for right time to do that."

 

[cnleio]

LOL ... Unsatisfied power ==> "ENTERPRISE", it's the right way to beomce a great power in this world, only few nations can understand it !